BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Knows v Kneeland. [1627] Mor 5862 (20 March 1627)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1627/Mor1405862-076.html Cite as:
[1627] Mor 5862
Subject_1 HUSBAND and WIFE. Subject_2 DIVISION II.
Extent of the Husband's liability for the Wife's debts contracted before Marriage.
Subject_3 SECT. II.
Effect of the Dissolution of the Marriage, as to the Wife's Moveable Debts.
Knows v. Kneeland
Date: 20 March 1627 Case No. No 76.
A woman and her husband, for his interest, were charged upon a decree obtained against her before her marriage. After they were denounced, the wife having died, the husband, in a suspension, was liberated from all further diligence.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a suspension betwixt Knows and Kneeland, Knows having obtained decreet before the Commissaries of Edinburgh against M. Hill, as intromissatrix with the goods of her umquhile husband, for payment of a debt owing by her husband; and after the decreet she being married upon Hary Kneeland her second husband; who being charged for his interest with her upon that sentence, for payment of that debt decerned against her; and being both denounced for not payment, the wife being principal debtor, as representing her first husband, and for whose debt sentence had past against her in her widowhood, she deceases; after whose death Kneeland, her second husband, suspends, because he being only charged for his interest for his wife's debt, and she being dead, he ought to be freed of all execution. This reason was found relevant; for the wife, who was principal debtor, being dead, they found that her husband could not be astricted as husband pro interesse, to pay the debt, albeit he was put to horn therefor in the wife's time; whereby the charger alleged, That he thereby became properly debtor himself, being once lawfully denounced for not payment, which should be respected as if he had made payment in her time, quo casu he could not remit it back again; which was repelled. But because the charger alleged that the suspender had intromitted with all his wife's goods and gear after her decease, therefore the Lords found that relevant to sustain the same charges against him hoc ordine in the suspension; and found no necessity to put the charger to a new pursuit against the suspender, thereupon to convene him as intromitter.
Act. Mowat.Alt. ——
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 390. Durie, p. 272.
